MAK FU AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

CACC000560/1970

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 560 OF 1970

-----------------

 

BETWEEN
	Mak Fu	Appellants
	Lam Sang
	and
	The Queen	Respondent

-----------------

Coram: Full Court: Mills-Owens and Pickering, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 18 March 1971

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

1. In the Court below there were other accused persons involved. The indictment contains three counts, the first count of robbery of a bank being against all the accused; the second and third counts, which concerned possession of a revolver and ammunition, were against the first appellant only. The only accused men, that is to say apart from the first and the third accused who are the present appellants, were acquitted and discharged in the course of the trial, there being virtually no evidence against them.

2. The trial proceeded against the two appellants, who were convicted by the jury on the first count, the second appellant unanimously and the first by a majority of six to one. The first appellant was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment and the second to 7 years. They have had the benefit of legal aid and the assistance of counsel Mr. Robert Wei who also represented them at their trial. Mr. Wei has this morning mentioned certain features of the evidence, particularly as it affects LUI Sang, an accomplice, but all these features were put to the jury quite clearly. The record shows that Mr. Wei addressed the jury very forcefully as to the alleged unreliability of LUI Sang. The jury must have thought otherwise and we find ourselves unable to say that the verdicts are verdicts which no reasonable jury could have arrived at. Accordingly those verdicts must be honoured, and the appeals against conviction dismissed.

3. As regards the appeals against sentence, obviously in present-day Hong Kong any intending offender must expect to receive a heavy sentence for an offence of this kind, the robbery of a bank. Indeed, this case was tried in the middle of last year; had it been tried today, the sentences would be, if anything, greater.

4. The learned judge differentiated between the two appellants, sentencing the first to 9 years' imprisonment and the second to 7 years, and gave good reasons for making that distinction. Taking into account all the circumstances and the records of the appellants, we see no reason to interfere with the sentences.

5. The appeals against sentence are also dismissed, but the time spent in custody pending appeal will count towards the sentences.

  

  

(Mills-Owens J.)

 

Representation: